Lost and Found Dept.

Rated R

I was on a walk this morning, in between summer storms, and found something white on the sidewalk(the R part begins here). Without investigating, even with the toe of my sneaker, I assumed from its size, shape, color&location that it was girls underwear tossed out the window of a car the night before. (Yes, this could be a puerile male fantasy, but read on as I think my reflections are worthwhile beyond any relation to the actual physical evidence.)

SOMEBODY LOST SOMETHING last night. Perhaps her virginity (if the first time) or her self respect (if the 5^th or 50^th). It matters a lot less than you think whether or not she “asked for it,” as that only determines whether it is rape or not. Maybe this guy was her dream date, maybe not. In any such transaction, the girl loses something important, and the boy gets something for nothing. Maybe he paid for dinner, maybe he just paid. That hardly matters either; it only determines if it is prostitution or not.

While I have no desire to trivialize the ugly violence of rape, the importance of sex goes far beyond its current legal or political status, and far, far, far beyond what two 15 year olds, or 50 year olds, give it on a certain night in a certain place. (At least that was the conclusion back when people actually studied these things.) Occasionally, as in Mary Pipher's frequently excellent “Reviving Ophelia” people still “get it” and actually write about how demeaning sex is for teen girls. The religion taught in public middle schools says that sex is OK if you've thought about it enough. I disagree, unless by "thought about it" your thinking leads you to realize that sex belongs exclusively within marriage, as previously taught by all cultures, even those that wink or even celebrate violations of this heretofore obvious fact.

In the 19^th century, Leo Tolstoy found meaning in the simple faith of the peasants. Today, Dallas Willard tells us, “there are no more peasants.” We convince ourselves that even the most obvious truths are just “lifestyle choices” and think we are sophisticated. Instead of just stupid.

A friend told me a story; hopefully it's not true. Year after year, a certain parent would tell their young child, as they went outside to play: “Have fun, and if things get too hot, put your panties back on and come home!” They thought they were being supremely clever, especially when, as a teen, the child finally got the “joke.” It's not a joke; it's immature parenting at best. And, yes, it would be of some comfort to learn that the parent made up this sick story to demonstrate their “cleverness” to an adult, and never actually spoke to a child this way. But in the end, perhaps it doesn't matter:

We trivialize sex, and then wonder why it doesn't satisfy us. The same lawgiver that governed the rising of the sun this beautiful summer day also said “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” The celestial bodies have no choice in their obedience; human bodies do have choice, we abuse it sorely, and feign surprise when teen girls and many others suffer consequences. . .

Sad but true

This week the Boston Globe smugly called for defunding of "abstinence only" sex ed. Maybe they have a tiny point, but here's my response:

Teaching a 14 year old girl how to become "My First Sexual Conquest" for an immature football player is hardly conducive to anyone’s health, mental or otherwise. Yet this is the flagship accomplishment of "scientific" sex education. I’m sure proponents of abstinence are more genuinely disappointed in "abstinence only" programs than activists like Julie F. Kay. But what is $200 million compared to the budget of even one teen movie that teaches boys that to "become a man" is to ask a girl for sex without promising anything—much less lifelong commitment—in return? A few micrometers of latex fail to turn this utterly selfish male act into anything remotely approaching responsible human sexuality. As a wide variety of authors have noted, from Mary Pipher to Wendy Shalit, the real beneficiaries of sexual "freedom" are not girls who give in to pressure, but rather boys who can’t handle the obligation of controlling their sexuality (except with the occasional condom). In fact they, and their enablers such as Ms. Kay, have become slaves to our basest instincts: conquest and domination. And Ms. Kay calls her resignation in the face of this horror "science"?

Refs: for Pipher: http://www.committment.com/ophelia.html
for Wendy Shalit, my hero: http://blogs.modestlyyours.net/modestly_yours/wendy_shalit/index.html

Gender autarky

or "Post a comment, save a life"
or "You heard it first here"
PARENTAL ADVISORY:
This is about as angry as I get, at least in print. Put the wee ones to bed--with lots of kisses--and read on:

"Hey, who you callin' nappy headed?" or
This emperor doesn't have any clothes, either:

To the Editor: Good riddance to Mr. Imus. I never knew who he was until "The Incident" and I'll bet I'm not the only one. His humorless slur has been repeated more times than it ought to have been.
But will Imus' firing help young, black women? Rap "artists"chant worse lyrics every day. And unlike Mr. Imus' "comedy" show, young black women actually LISTEN to these viler than vile lyrics. And some even date the men who threaten them with violence via the airwaves.
So why don't we take them off the air, too? If msnbc can afford to lose the $15 million that Imus brings in, what's a few hundred million more, right? Or could it be that Imus is being thrown to the wolves so the rap-rapists can continue to jump for their greedy radio station masters and do as they please with their prey?
D_______ H_________
Newton
__________
So what's with all the titles? And what the heck is "gender autarky" (generates no hits on Google if you use quotes). Is there any connection to the letter? Well, it seems that rappist, as a synonym for rapper, is occasionally being spelled "rapist." Is there irony here, or just a sad accuracy?
Rape is such a hideous crime that I hesitate to write about it. (Only 1% of the victims are men, but I'll bet being less numerous doesn't make them feel any better.) Nonetheless, I can see that, for a female rape survivor, perhaps cutting herself off from men might be some sort of survival skill. But beyond this tragic case, I find the idea that women can live without men illogical and deeply sad. Women are supposed to be nurturing; liberals are supposed to be into multiculturalism(with only half of the world?). So autarky (not to be confused with autarchy) means cutting women off from the evil corrupting world of men, at least at the emotional and intellectual level. Doing so at the practical level would mean allowing men to exist only to provide sperm and tax dollars so liberal feminists can make the world a better place for themselves. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi can rewrite Huxley so that all the alphas and betas are women, and the men are just artisans and slaves.
And, getting back to the rappers, yeah, I know all their tough talk is just a "cry for help." Marching in the streets and voting is SOOOO 1960's, and doesn't pay very well, either. But "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" will still be read by my grandchildren, while no one will know who shot Tupac.

So, to my faithful readers, (if I have any) my "cry for help" is: Should I send this letter off today while the Imus story is hot? Or should I hunker down in my apartment and shut up, lest someone find my address and burn down my house if this is published? (3 of my last 4 or five have been, so....) Vote now; "Yes" voters: be sure to use the anonymous option or my landlady might sue you if this computer survives the fire. OK, that's not very funny, but...........